WASHINGTON TALK: THE CONSTITUTION

WASHINGTON TALK: THE CONSTITUTION; To Amend or Not: The Debate Continues

Special to the New York Times

Published: April 2, 1987

WASHINGTON, April 1—
In May 1787 Congress called a convention to revise the Government charter, the Articles of Confederation. Before the delegates adjourned they had thrown the charter out.

They replaced it with a new plan of Government, named it the Constitution of the United States and set up their own ratification procedures for its adoption by the states.

On the eve of the 200th birthday of this Constitution, a coalition of groups that span the political spectrum says it is fearful of this precedent of the Founding Fathers, and it is stepping up its efforts to block calls for a second constitutional convention.

The coalition represents an unlikely political union, including, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union, the John Birch Society, the National Organization for Women, the Gun Owners Clubs of America and Phyllis Schlafly, an advocate of conservative causes.

All believe that a convention could not possibly be limited to one issue. And all fear that provisions they hold dear would be stricken from the document and that measures they abhor - whether sanctioned school prayer or the proposed equal rights amendment - would be introduced at the convention for state ratification. Those in Favor

On the other side, President Reagan, some members of Congress and groups like the National Taxpayers Union are telephoning and writing members of state legislatures urging them to vote in favor of calling a constitutional convention - a convention they say would be limited to one order of business, consideration of an amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget.

That is how the convention drive began, in the mid 1970's, to bring about consideration of such an amendment. Since 1975, 32 states have voted to issue convention calls on the budget issue. When the total reaches 34, the Constitution stipulates that a convention must be held.

At the moment, convention bills are pending before 11 more state legislatures. Bills to rescind previous calls are under consideration in four.

In one of those four states, Maryland, the House of Delegates last week passed a resolution to rescind the state's convention call, which was issued in 1975, but the measure is said to face a tough battle in the Maryland Senate.

The Nevada House also voted recently to rescind that state's call, and Senate action is expected soon. Final votes on the call for rescission measures in Texas and Georgia have not been set.

Last month the Montana legislature defeated a resolution to call a convention for the balanced-budget amendment. That was after Mr. Reagan had written a letter to the leader of the Montana Senate urging passage of the resolution and after Mrs. Schlafly had testified before the chamber calling for defeat.

As their efforts indicate, lobbying on both sides of the issue is growing more intense.

''There are no rules surrounding a constitutional convention,'' said Linda Rogers-Kingsbury, president of Citizens to Protect the Constitution, the coalition opposing the convention.

''We don't know who the delegates would be,'' she continued. ''Once they meet, there is going to be wheeling and dealing and trading and compromising.''

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Republican from Utah, has introduced legislation that would set up procedures under which a convention would be held. Randy Rader, the Senator's chief counsel, said that each of the 32 calls passed so far states the balanced budget amendment as the purpose for the session.

''The authority springs from the states' convening of the convention,'' Mr. Rader said. ''If the convening is for one purpose, how can the convention be for other purposes?''